Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

Ski Review- 2021 Åsnes Otto Sverdrup BC- Magic, yes- but, not a highly-versatile touring ski

I'll start with a photo- Look at those tails!!!!

...............

I must begin this review with the admission that I was expecting to be disappointed with this ski.

I am not a believer- nor a fan- of skis (as well as many other technologies) that are designed to be good at everything.

Up until this point- every ski that I have tested that is a “jack-of-all-trades”- has also been a “master-of-none”- and in most cases has either offered poor performance in every context, or at the very least is boring.

So- I went ahead and bought a 205 Åsnes Otto Sverdrup BC- advertised as being a cambered efficient XC touring ski, yet also offering good downhill performance. I was expecting to be disappointed. (And I also agnonized over choosing a length).

I must now report- after more than a month of striding and charging- that I am not disappointed with the Sverdrup.

I am thrilled with the Sverdrup BC- thrilled with it. And- if the conditions were perfect for it every day- it would be THE ski I reach for in the shed- every day.

The Sverdrup is not a jack-of-all trades touring ski- in fact there are many contexts where it is poor to terrible.

BUT- when the conditions are ideal- it is pure magic, pure magic.

The Sverdrup is a dream XC ski on steep, tight terrain and trails, in soft but not too deep snow.

(I have not tested the Sverdrup on hardpack/consolidated snow yet.)

The positives of the Sverdrup:
- has a poppy, significant camber underfoot, that offers excellent true kick & glide performance, but is relatively easy to compress on soft snow and when climbing
- has a traditional stiff, raised tip that breaks trail effectively in soft snow
- has significant Nordic rocker that encourages planing at downhill speeds
- has significant sidecut- facilitating a tight turn radius
- has a rockered and flexible shovel + a forward mounting position- encouraging turn initiation
- has a flexible, tapered, and slightly open tail- facilitating variable turn radii, and even surfy, smeary, slarvy turns (when the snow is not too deep)
- is ultralight and easy to step/stride/jump through turns when one needs to
- has a reasonably stable flex in snow up to ~20-30cm deep

The “negatives” of the Sverdrup:
- is TERRIBLE in breakable crust- the waspy waist breaks through- leaving both the shovel and the tail riding on the crust- frackin miserable
- is unstable in truly deep soft snow
- is a bit squirrelly in pure XC mode- it wants to turn

I love this ski.

I would not be happy with this ski if it was my only touring ski- I do not have continuous shallow hero snow to ski on.

I do not see it as a “quiver-of-one”, do everything Nordic touring ski.

BUT- when the conditions are ideal- it is truly dreamy. A real slice of Nordic magic.

The Specs:
Core: solid wood
Sidecut: 78-55-69mm
Length: 175-205cm (in 5cm increments)
Weight: 1070g-200cm
Base: sintered
X-Skin/Skin-lock kicker skin insert
Full-wrap steel edges
Tip: stiff, broad, raised
Nordic rocker: significant shovel rocker
Camber: significant and moderately-stiff camber underfoot
Tail: tapered and slightly open
Flex: flexible shovel- stiff underfoot- flexible tail

The Sverdrup is the most cambered underfoot of any Åsnes fjellski that I own; it is more cambered underfoot than the Nansen/Ingstad/Combat NATO/Gamme 54/Amundsen.

The overall geometry is closest to the Ingstad BC- though the Sverdrup’s shovel/tail is more flexible and open, and it is more cambered and stiffer underfoot.

The feel of the Sverdrup underfoot reminds me most of my 210 E-99-XL and 205 E-109-XL- though it does not “feel” quite as stiff and poppy underfoot as my E99…

The flex and geometry and performance of the Sverdrup is VERY different from the Nansen- despite having a seemingly close sidecut profile.

XC Skiing
Åsnes claims that the Sverdrup is a more efficient XC ski than the Nansen. I am not convinced by this yet…At the moment I will have to take Åsnes’ word on this…While the Sverdrup is definitely more cambered and poppy underfoot than the Nansen- it has a MUCH shorter glide zone than the Nansen…I am not yet convinced that it is a more efficient XC ski than the Nansen…(perhaps it is on consolidated snow- due to camber- but it is definitely not a better trail-breaker than the Nansen- and definitely not as stable in truly deep snow).

The Sverdrup is definitely a more efficient XC ski than Ingstad- in less than 30cm of soft snow. Once the snow gets deeper- the Ingstad is more efficient- despite being less cambered underfoot.

While I find the Sverdrup a perfectly acceptable XC touring ski for even extended touring- it is nowhere near as efficient a XC ski as the Gamme or the Amundsen.

The Sverdrup is the most “squirrelly” of all of my Åsnes fjellskis- even more than the Ingstad (though not as much as my FT62). The Sverdrup has a short glide zone/effective edge (i.e. even shorter than the Ingstad)- this coupled with its ample sidecut + forward mounting point, cause the Sverdrup to want to turn. I find it wanders quite a bit- enough that I find it almost annoying for extended XC skiing and find that I need to shorten my stride, compared to when I am on the Gamme/Amundsen.

That being said- the Sverdrup is a decent XC ski- and I must remind myself that I was touring on the almost straight, stiff, non-rockered Amundsen for several weeks before I put the Sverdrup through its paces…(i.e. not a fair comparison.)

Breaking Trail
While on the one hand, the Sverdrup does have a traditional stiff, broad, raised tip- it has significant Nordic rocker.

The Nordic rocker does nothing but create resistance when XC skiing in soft fresh snow- and it shortens the glide zone on consolidated snow.

That being said- the Sverdrup is a pretty decent trail breaker until it encounters breakable crust…(i.e. It is a better trail breaker than many other touring skis such as the E99/E109-XL, Eon. Epoch, Fischer 78/88).

So breakable crust…
Breakable frackin crust…

Breakable Crust…
The Sverdrup might be the worst fjellski I have ever tested in breakable crust…(BTW- the 1st/2nd gen Falketind 62 is even worse).

The waspy waist breaks through the crust-
The flexible rockered shovel rides on top of the crust-
The flexible tail rides on top of the crust-

The two times I have had the Sverdrup out in breakable crust it has been so bad that I turned around after 100m to get a different ski…The second time it was so bad I could barely move…

Enough said…

Fresh snow-
In less than 30cm of soft fresh snow the Sverdrup is an excellent XC ski.

In truly deep snow- this ski bows too much- due to its flexible shovel/tail (though not as bad as many other skis (e.g. E99/E109-XL; Eon, Epoch)).

Climbing
I was worried about the length (re- camber) I chose for this ski- for two reasons- climbing grip and downhill-pressured turns.

I have been very pleased with the climbing grip of this ski. I weigh ~180lbs and am on the 205. BTW- I am grip-waxing the entire base of this ski.

I have only needed skins on this ski when the snow has been warmer than ~-5C and only when climbing truly steep slopes.

Downhill Skiing
Stable. Ultralite. Sidecut. Rockered and taped tip-shovel. Flexible shovel. Flexible, tapered and slightly open tail. Compressible camber underfoot. Forward mounting position and short effective edge.

This ski is truly amazing downhill. It planes. It surfs. It holds an edge. It is easy to pressure. Turn initiation and release is effortless. It is ultralight and effortless for step/striding/jump turns.

It is a dream XC skiing for steep, tight lines and trails.
I am in love.

I have yet to try the Sverdrup downhill skiing on hardpack/consolidated snow. I expect it to ski very short.

The Sverdrup has a shorter effective edge than the Ingstad. I would estimate that the effective edge of a 205 Sverdrup is ~= 185 Nansen (or perhaps even shorter!!)

Current Conclusions
The addition of two new skis this winter have exploded my BC Nordic touring quiver- the Sverdrup and the Amundsen. My Gamme and my Ingstad have not left the barn yet this winter…(my regular tour partner has a 210 Gamme- I have been testing it against the Amundsen for several weeks).

We had an unusually late start to our snow this winter- and up until this weekend- the snowpack in the woods has still been too shallow for glade skiing- I haven’t been out on my Ingstad once!!!! (BIG snow today- first Ingstad tur planned for tomorrow!)

And here’s the thing- if I did not get big snow- and truly deep soft snow- with the Sverdrup, I would probably never use my Ingstad again!!!!

And with the Sverdrup + Amundsen- I am left not “needing” my beloved Gamme 54….

So-

My current conclusion is that the Sverdrup is not a versatile touring ski-
The Nansen and the Gamme are more versatile than the Sverdrup (heck- I would even argue that the Amundsen is more versatile than the Sverdrup- more on that later…)

BUT- I don’t know that I have ever had as much fun on a XC ski in hilly terrain!

Asnes Sverdrup BC. Highly recommended.

Gareth Davies
January 29th, 2022
Snow Glade Farm
Stanley, NB
Canada

Another comprehensive review, with plenty of stoke shining through. Thanks for always documenting your gear experiences so thoroughly LC.

@Smitty
Thanks man!
Good to hear from you Smitty and great to see recent posts from you!
Hope all is well with you and yours mon ami!
Gareth

On the issue of selecting a length for the Sverdrup-

I agonized- more than usual- over choosing a length for this ski.

I am 5'10" (178cm) and 180ish lbs (82kg)- and I am currently skiing on the 205 Sverdrup BC.

I was worried that this "significantly cambered" ski would be too much for me in steep terrain- I find that it is not.

That being said- considering my intended use for this ski- "XC" skiing in steep-tight terrain- I am thinking that I would perhaps be just as happy- if not even more thrilled- with this ski at 195/200.

Thanks for a very nice review Gareth.

Due to a series of unfortunate alternating circumstances such as terrible weather with rain and/ or hurricane force winds, sickness, lack of time and/ or episodic lack of snow, and once by choice (breakable crust on the menu, I took the Combat Nato instead) I still have skied the Otto Sverdrups only three times for shorter trips (10-15 km).
I waxed a bit long the first outing, resulting in a big chunk of the shorter-than-Im-used-to glide zone being grippy. I had great grip in steeper sections where I was expecting to need skins, so that was only slightly penalizing.
The other outings, were in rolling terrain, unfortunately with so-so snow coverage and lots of navigation to avoid rocks. Good fun though, but not conditions where its best advantages (turnability) would really come to light.

Compared to the Combat Nato 210 cm, the Otto is clearly a lighter and more nimble ski, easier to sidestep and kick turn. XC offtrack performance in straight line were perceived to be similar in the conditions I used them in. The Sverdrup were clearly easier to steer. The Combat Nato is probably a bit easier to wax to the right length, given the longer glide zone. That said I find it more difficult to climb with in steep irregular terrain. Not sure if this is only due to the higher mass in the tips and 5cm longer length.

I also cut down my quiver of skis to just the Otto Sverdrup and Combat Nato. The Waxless of the Nansen never worked to my satisfaction, no matter how much I enjoyed the other aspects of that ski. @lilcliffy I'm curious to know your experience.

I also sold the FT62. I liked it most for situations I rarely encounter nowadays; the new reality of my life is that I can plan occasional multi day tours or go for quick and dirty tours on the back yard mountain with steep tricky terrain. I think that Combat Nato and Otto Sverdrup are two skis that adequately cover that usage spectrum, each with their own minor quirks and advantages. For a two ski quiver, the Sverdrup + Combat Nato combo covers a broader spectrum of optimal use than the Nansen + Combat Nato, as the latter are more similar with their absence of rocker.

For my current skiing either the Combat Nato, the Sverdrup or the Nansen (waxable) could be good one quiver skis. I have not yet encountered breakable crust in the Sverdrup yet though.

I also sold the Scarpa T4s I had, they were too much for me to tour in, and didn't fit anywhere near to optimal, in spite of having them thermoformed in the shop. I still have Crispi Bre and Fischer Transnordic 75. The latter is remarkably beefy for a leather boot and better compromise than the T4 for me.

These two posts from @lilcliffy and @Roelant caught my attention.

I bought the Otto Sverdrup in 200cm, before knowing Asnes’s length recommendation for the ski.
I’m 175 base weight, 195 / 88.5kg skiing weight, and 6’3” / 190cm.
(A little lighter and a little taller than @lilcliffy.)

This is the table for Sverdrup from Asnes: .
So, for hieght, this puts me right on the 200/205 borderline.
And for weight, near the top end of the 200.

So, I have been thinking I should have bought the 205 and have put the 200 up for sale.
(viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4644&sid=e1df2e9515 ... 44b#p46234)

But, it sounds like @lilcliffy is thinking, for him, the 200 could also work.
And, @Roelant is on the 205, is heavier then I am, and, based on his limited experience so far, seems pretty happy with the 205.
From both those data points, I’m extrapolating that, as a turns ski, the 200s might work ok for me.

I know there is no “right” answer.
If I was buying them now, I would probably go with 205.
But am really wondering if the 200s might be just fine?
I’ll be interested to hear what @jyw5 thinks of these skis, especially if he is skiing them on the shorter side.
.

lilcliffy wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:53 am

On the issue of selecting a length for the Sverdrup-

I agonized- more than usual- over choosing a length for this ski.

I am 5'10" (178cm) and 180ish lbs (82kg)- and I am currently skiing on the 205 Sverdrup BC.

I was worried that this "significantly cambered" ski would be too much for me in steep terrain- I find that it is not.

That being said- considering my intended use for this ski- "XC" skiing in steep-tight terrain- I am thinking that I would perhaps be just as happy- if not even more thrilled- with this ski at 195/200.

Roelant wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 31, 2022 12:22 pm

.
I still have skied the Otto Sverdrups only three times for shorter trips (10-15 km).
.
.
I think that Combat Nato and Otto Sverdrup are two skis that adequately cover that usage spectrum, each with their own minor quirks and advantages. For a two ski quiver, the Sverdrup + Combat Nato combo covers a broader spectrum of optimal use than the Nansen + Combat Nato, as the latter are more similar with their absence of rocker.
.
.

@Stephen you mention I'm happy, well yes so far. But, I'm always far heavier than the recommendations for the second to longest length so I never really ask the question.
I'm around 103 kg now, but add some gear and clothes it's already 108, With a touring pack 115 to 120 kg... its a lot of force and stress on equipment. Boots which are plenty stiff for a 60 kg skier will just torque along the sole, and I end up having rhe impression that it's just the little pinky toe which keeps the whole ski on edge sometimes.

As with the choice of skis, the length is also subject to the question: in which circumstances am I going to use this? If you have gammes to cover long distance, do you need your Sverdrup to perform optimal over long distance as well? What other penalties are there?

Shorter skis for me also increase risk of crossing them by accident, the rear ski tip can pass behind the front boot in a low tele turn. But my technique stinks.

Roelant wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 31, 2022 3:21 pm

#1. @Stephen you mention I'm happy, well yes so far.
.
.
#2. Shorter skis for me also increase risk of crossing them by accident, the rear ski tip can pass behind the front boot in a low tele turn. But my technique stinks.

#1. Maybe I’m just trying to feel better with rationalization and justification!


#2. I have the same problem challenge. But I learned on 220s which protected me from my poor technique.
It’s quite amusing when that uphill ski tip wants to go off on its own downhill trip!

@Stephen whoever is in charge is more likely to grant forgiveness than permission:)

@Roelant I forgive myself on an hourly basis, knowing I would do better if I could.